Is This a Bet?

Recently at dinner, a discussion about ethics came up. Several real-life situations were related to me and I was asked how I would judge each one. I told my friends how I would rule if I were the judge in each case, and got to thinking that Card Player readers might enjoy debating each case. Here are the scenarios as they were described to me:

Case No. 1: Player A and Player B are both high-limit players who want to make a bet between themselves on how many players will actually participate in Bellagio's first $10,000 no-limit hold'em tournament. They set the line at 100 players and agree that if the number of participants is exactly 100, it will be a push. If there are fewer than 100 entrants, Player A will win his "under" bet. If there are more than 100 entrants, Player B will win his "over" bet. There are no other stipulations, and this is the entire basis of the wager.

Shortly after Players A and B make the bet, the management of Bellagio announces that they have decided to guarantee a $1 million prize pool for the tournament. Neither party to the bet knew this was going to happen. It is a fairly common belief that having a guarantee helps to increase the number of entrants in a tournament. Player A calls Player B and declares that since the guarantee was not in effect at the time of the bet, the conditions of the event have been changed and he is calling off the bet.

Player B protests, saying, "A bet is a bet. We made a bet and it wasn't based on any conditions. The bet stands."

You be the judge here. Does Player A have the right to call off the bet?

Case No. 2: Player A is in the midst of cashing out of a pot-limit Omaha game and is about to be replaced at the table by Player B. The following conversation ensues between Player A and Player B. (I am paraphrasing based on the way the story was related to me.)

Player B: Do you want to buy a piece of my play tonight since you are done playing?

Player A: Perhaps. What do you anticipate is the maximum amount of your own money that you are willing to invest in this game?

Player B: I am willing to go as high as $40,000 or $50,000.

Player A: OK, then I will take 25 percent of your entire play for this evening. How much money would you like in advance?

Player B: I have money, so just leave me $2,500 for now.

Player A: OK, are you sure that is enough?

Player B: Yes.

Player A: Count me in for 25 percent of tonight's action.

Player A then handed Player B $2,500 and went off to bed. Player B bought in for an amount that was either $5,000 or $10,000 (sorry, but the person telling me the story wasn't sure of the exact buy-in), and ran the money up quite a bit before eventually losing his first buy-in. He then rebought and lost again, then made another rebuy and lost it, too.

Although Player B was stuck only about $25,000, he decided to let Player A know what was happening before going further in the game. He called the hotel room of Player A, but the operator made an error and rang the room of another player who had a similar sounding last name. (The other player confirmed that there was a message on his phone when he returned to his room.) Player B then returned to the table and announced that he had been unable to get in touch with Player A. He asked the players in the game to be witnesses to the fact that he was now cutting Player A out of the action, since he didn't know if he would want to continue further. Player B then went on a rush and had about $60,000 in front of him when Player A returned.

Player B explained to Player A that he had been cut out, and that he had announced it to the entire table. He added that if he had lost additional money from the point that Player A had been cut out, Player A would not have owed more money; therefore, he was not entitled to any of the winnings. Player A was irate that he had been cut out and insisted that this wasn't fair since he had told Player B that he would be in for any amount up to $50,000 and had been willing to leave more money in advance.

You are the judge in this case. Is Player A entitled to any of the winnings?

Form your own opinion before reading on. I believe that a bet made between two people is binding unless they both agree to cancel or alter the bet. Therefore, in the first example, I don't think Player A has the right to cancel the bet without the permission of Player B. In the second case, a deal was made and Player A had indicated that he would take 25 percent of Player B's action up to $50,000. Therefore, I don't believe that Player B had the right to cut him out before reaching that point, even though he had diligently tried to reach Player A and had made the announcement to the table.

Now, let's play poker!

For information about Card Player Cruises poker vacations, the World Poker Players Conference, the World Poker Industry Conference, or poker in Costa Rica, please contact me at [email protected].